lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Comparison between three trees (was: Latest numa/core release, v17)
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 04:47:15PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On 11/24/12, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:
> > Warning: This is an insanely long mail and there a lot of data here. Get
> > coffee or something.
> >
> > This is another round of comparisons between the latest released versions
> > of each of three automatic numa balancing trees that are out there.
> >
> > From the series "Automatic NUMA Balancing V5", the kernels tested were
> >
> > stats-v5r1 Patches 1-10. TLB optimisations, migration stats
> > thpmigrate-v5r1 Patches 1-37. Basic placement policy, PMD handling, THP
> > migration etc.
> > adaptscan-v5r1 Patches 1-38. Heavy handed PTE scan reduction
> > delaystart-v5r1 Patches 1-40. Delay the PTE scan until running on a new
> > node
> >
> > If I just say balancenuma, I mean the "delaystart-v5r1" kernel. The other
> > kernels are included so you can see the impact the scan rate adaption
> > patch has and what that might mean for a placement policy using a proper
> > feedback mechanism.
> >
> > The other two kernels were
> >
> > numacore-20121123 It was no longer clear what the deltas between releases
> > and
> > the dependencies might be so I just pulled tip/master on November
> > 23rd, 2012. An earlier pull had serious difficulties and the patch
> > responsible has been dropped since. This is not a like-with-like
> > comparison as the tree contains numerous other patches but it's
> > the best available given the timeframe
> >
> > autonuma-v28fast This is a rebased version of Andrea's autonuma-v28fast
> > branch with Hugh's THP migration patch on top.
>
> FYI, based on how target huge page is selected,
>
> +
> + new_page = alloc_pages_node(numa_node_id(),
> + (GFP_TRANSHUGE | GFP_THISNODE) & ~__GFP_WAIT, HPAGE_PMD_ORDER);
>
> the thp replacement policy is changed to be MORON,
>

That is likely true. When rebasing a policy on top of balancenuma it is
important to keep an eye on what node is used for target migration and
what node is passed to task_numa_fault() and confirm this is the node
the policy expects.

--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-26 11:01    [W:0.090 / U:0.496 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site